--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > <snip> > > Both teachers and meditators believe they were doing more > > analyzing than they were. Mostly we fit together phrases > > from his language patterns like a puzzle. I'm sure you > > are familiar with the concept of "sacred science" language > > from Lifton. Using TM terms and phrases gives people a > > lot more confidence in their understanding than I believe > > is deserved. > > ROTFL! Citing Lifton in relation to TM is sillier than > citing Erikson, IMHO.
Not according to Lifton himself. His use of the language of "sacred science" is dead on IMO. Singer, his partner in applying his theory to the movement, agreed. > > Yes, I've read him. Remember how you refused to discuss > his theories with me on alt.m.t? I must have asked you a > dozen times. I remember discussing it with you on numerous occasions although I am sure I also refused sometimes. I find his model very useful in understanding my experience in the TM movement which we have clarified was very different from your own. Applying his principles to a person who was not in a fulltime facility and subject to the rules of a teacher seems pointless. I am certainly not interested in convincing you of anything here. Lifton's were a critical piece for my understanding of what happened to me in the movement. I offer my experience to others who want to do their own study and decide if it applies to their experience. Your opinions about either his theories or my application of them to my own unshared movement experiences is worthless to me. I accept that you don't find the model useful in evaluating your relationship with Maharishi and the movement. Given our different history in the movement that does not surprise me. >
